HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HARC_06.11.2020Notice of Meeting for the
Historic and Architectural Rev iew Commission
of the City of Georgetown
June 11, 2020 at 6:00 P M
at Teleconference
T he C ity o f G eorgetown is c o mmitted to c ompliance with the Americans with Dis ab ilities Ac t (ADA). If yo u
req uire as s is tanc e in participating at a p ublic meeting d ue to a disability, as d efined und er the ADA, reasonable
as s is tance, ad ap tatio ns , or acc o mmo d ations will b e provid ed up o n req uest. P leas e contac t the C ity S ecretary's
O ffic e, at leas t three (3) d ays p rio r to the s cheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or C ity Hall at 808 Martin
Luther King Jr. S treet, G eo rgeto wn, T X 78626 for ad d itional info rmation; T T Y us ers route thro ugh R elay
Texas at 711.
The r egul ar mee ting will conve ne at 6:00pm on J une 11, 2020 vi a
te le confe r e nce . To par tic ipate , pl e ase c opy and paste the webli nk into your
browse r : https://bit.l y/2 Wt1zde
Webinar I D : 915-6306-8440
If you'r e atte nding the live eve nt on the we b, use a me dia-sour ce exte nsion
(M S E ) - e nable d web br owser l ike C hrome, F ire fox, or E dge . S afar i is not
c ur re ntly suppor ted.
To partic ipate by phone :
C all in number : (Toll F re e) 833 548 0282
P asswo rd fo r meeting: 932056
P ublic c omment wi ll be allowe d vi a the above c onfer e nc e c all number ; no in-
per son i nput wil l be allowed.
Regular Session
(T his R egular S es s ion may, at any time, be rec es s ed to c o nvene an Exec utive S es s ion for any purp o s e
authorized b y the O pen Meetings Ac t, Texas G o vernment C ode 551.)
A D iscussion on how the H istoric and Architectural R eview C ommission virtual conference will be conducted,
to include options for public comments and how the public may address the C ommission -- S ofia N elson,
C N U -A, P lanning D irector
B T he Histo ric and Arc hitectural R eview C ommission, appointed by the Mayo r and the C ity C ounc il, is
respons ible fo r hearing and taking final actio n o n applic ations , b y is s uing C ertificates o f Ap p ro p riatenes s
based upo n the C ity C o uncil ad o p ted Downto wn Design G uid elines and Unified Develo p ment C ode.
Welcome and Meeting P ro cedures :
· S taff P res entation
· Applic ant P resentatio n (Limited to ten minutes unles s stated otherwis e by the C o mmis s io n.)
· Q ues tions from C o mmis s io n to S taff and Ap p licant
· C o mments from C itizens *
· Applic ant R espons e
· C o mmis s io n Delib erative P roc es s
· C o mmis s io n Ac tion
* O nce s taff and the ap p licant have ad d res s ed ques tions from the C o mmis s io ners, the C hair of the
Page 1 of 124
C ommissio n will open the pub lic hearing. If a member of the pub lic would like to provid e c o mments o n
the agenda item under disc ussion, the c hair will as k if anyo ne wo uld like to s peak. To s p eak, unmute
yo urself on your p hone and s tate yo ur name and address. O nc e the C hair has the names of everyone who
wo uld like to s peak, the C hair will c all the names in o rd er, and when yo ur name is called you will have up
to 3 minutes. A speaker may allo t their time to ano ther s peaker fo r a maximum o f 6 minutes . If a member
of the public wis hed to allo t their time to ano ther s peaker, they may do so when their name is called by the
C hair. P leas e rememb er that all c omments and ques tions mus t be ad d res s ed to the C o mmis s io n, and
please b e p atient while we organize the sp eakers d uring the pub lic hearing portio n.
• T he pub lic als o has the opportunity to provid e comments thro ugh the Q &A s ection o f the Live
Meeting, loc ated o n the right-hand side o f yo ur c o mp uter s creen. P lease provid e your full name and
address for the rec o rd , and your c o mment will b e read b y S taff.
•After everyo ne who has asked to s p eak has s poken, the C hair will close the pub lic hearing and provid e a
few minutes o f rebuttal time to the ap p lic ant if they s o c hoose.
L egislativ e Regular Agenda
C C ons id eratio n and p o s s ib le ac tion to app ro ve the minutes from the May 28, 2020 regular meeting of the
Histo ric and Architec tural R eview C o mmis s ion. - Mirna G arc ia, Management Analys t
D P ublic Hearing and P ossible Action o n a reques t fo r a Certificate of Appropriateness (C O A) fo r the
demolition of a low priority s tructure at the p ro p erty loc ated 1002 E. 14th S treet, bearing the legal
desc rip tio n 0.328 acres o ut of the no rthwes t p art o f Blo ck 38 o f the S nyder Additio n. (2020-18-C O A) --
Britin Bos tic k, Do wntown & His toric P lanner
E P ublic Hearing and P ossible Action o n a reques t fo r a Certificate of Appropriateness (C O A) fo r
new res idential (infill) cons tructio n at the p ro p erty loc ated at 1002 E. 14th S treet, bearing the legal
desc rip tio n 0.328 acres o ut of the no rthwes t p art o f Blo ck 38 o f the S nyder Additio n. (2020-26-C O A) --
Britin Bos tic k, Do wntown & His toric P lanner
F Updates , C ommis s ioner ques tions , and c o mments . - S ofia Nels o n, P lanning Direc tor
Adjournment
Ce rtificate of Posting
I, R obyn Dens mo re, C ity S ec retary for the C ity of G eorgetown, Texas, do hereb y certify that this Notice of
Meeting was p o s ted at C ity Hall, 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgeto wn, T X 78626, a p lace readily
acc es s ib le to the general p ublic as req uired by law, on the _____ day of _________________, 2020, at
__________, and remained so p o s ted fo r at leas t 72 c o ntinuo us hours prec eding the sc heduled time of s aid
meeting.
__________________________________
R o b yn Dens more, C ity S ecretary
Page 2 of 124
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
June 11, 2020
S UB J E C T:
D iscussion on how the H istoric and Architectural R eview C ommission virtual conference will be conducted,
to include options for public comments and how the public may address the C ommission -- S ofia N elson,
C N U -A, P lanning D irector
IT E M S UMMARY:
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
N/A
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Andreina Dávila-Q uintero, AI C P, C urrent P lanning Manager
Page 3 of 124
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
June 11, 2020
S UB J E C T:
C o nsideration and pos s ible actio n to ap p rove the minutes fro m the May 28, 2020 regular meeting o f the
His toric and Arc hitectural R eview C ommiss io n. - Mirna G arcia, Management Analys t
IT E M S UMMARY:
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
.
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Mirna G arcia, Management Analyst
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
minutes Backup Material
Page 4 of 124
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 4
Meeting: May 28, 2020
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
Minutes
May 28, 2020 at 6:00 p.m.
Teleconference Meeting: https://bit.ly/2RbSqUx
The regular meeting convened at 6:00PM on May 28, 2020 via teleconference at:
https://bit.ly/2RbSqUx
To participate by phone: Call in number: +1 512-672-8405 Conference ID#: 305 091 196#.
Public Comment was allowed via the conference call number or the “ask a question” function on
the video conference option; no in-person input was allowed.
Members present: Amanda Parr, Chair; Catherine Morales; Art Browner; Faustine Curry; Pam
Mitchell; Terri Asendorf-Hyde; Karalei Nunn; Robert McCabe
Members absent: Steve Johnston
Staff present: Sofia Nelson, Planning Director; Nat Waggoner, Long Range Planning Manager;
Mirna Garcia, Management Analyst; Britin Bostick, Historic Planner
Call to order by Commissioner Parr at 6:02 pm.
Regular Session
(This Regular Session may, at any time, be recessed to convene an Executive Session for any
purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code 551.)
A. (Instructions for joining meeting attached). Discussion on how the Historic and Architectural
Review Commission virtual conference will be conducted, to include options for public
comments and how the public may address the Commission. – Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning
Director
B. The Historic and Architectural Review Commission, appointed by the Mayor and the City
Council, is responsible for hearing and taking final action on applications, by issuing
Certificates of Appropriateness based upon the City Council adopted Downtown Design
Guidelines and Unified Development Code.
Welcome and Meeting Procedures:
- Staff Presentation
- Applicant Presentation (Limited to ten minutes unless stated otherwise by the Commission.)
- Questions from Commission to Staff and Applicant
- Comments from Citizens*
- Applicant Response
- Commission Deliberative Process
- Commission Action
*Once staff and the applicant have addressed questions from the Commissioners, the Chair of the
Commission will open the public hearing. If a member of the public would like to provide comments
Page 5 of 124
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 4
Meeting: May 28, 2020
on the agenda item under discussion, the chair will ask if anyone would like to speak. To
speak, unmute yourself by pressing *6 on your phone and state your n ame and address. Once the
Chair has the names of everyone who would like to speak, the Chair will call the names in order, and
when your name is called you will have up to 3 minutes. A speaker may allot their time to another
speaker for a maximum of 6 minutes. If a member of the public wished to allot their time to another
speaker, they may do so when their name is called by the Chair. Please remember that all comments
and questions must be addressed to the Commission, and please be patient while we organiz e the
speakers during the public hearing portion.
• The public also has the opportunity to provide comments through the Q&A section of the Live
Meeting, located on the right-hand side of your computer screen. Please provide your full name and
address for the record, and your comment will be read by Staff.
•After everyone who has asked to speak has spoken, the Chair will close the public hearing and
provide a few minutes of rebuttal time to the applicant if they so choose.
Legislative Regular Agenda
C. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the May 14, 2020 regular
meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission. - Mirna Garcia, Management
Analyst
Motion to approve Item C by Commissioner Curry. Second by Commissioner Nunn.
Approved (7-0).
D. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a 4’-
10” setback encroachment into the required 6’ side (north) setback to allow a residential
addition 1’-2” from the side (north) property line; a 4'-4" setback encroachment into the required
15' side street (south) setback to allow a residential addition 10'-8" from the side street (south)
property line; and a new fence, railing or wall that is inconsistent with the overlay district's
characteristics and applicable guidelines at the property located at 1307 Myrtle Street, bearing
the legal description 0.13 acres out of part of Block B of the Hughes Second Addition. – Britin
Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
Staff report presented by Bostick. The existing structure is situated within both the side and side
street setbacks for the Residential Single Family (RS) zoning district, and the applicant is
requesting HARC approval of two setback modifications. The first setback modification request
is for a 4’-10” setback encroachment into the required 6’ side (north) setback to enclose the
existing carport and convert it to an enclosed garage. The proposed garage conversion would
not extend the building further into the setback, however as the north wall of the structure and
carport is currently 1’-2” from the north property line, the proposed addition of a concrete slab
in the garage and the enclosure of the garage are partially within the required 6’ side setback,
and require a setback modification. The second setback modification request is for a 4'-4"
setback encroachment into the required 15' side street (south) setback to allow the addition of a
porch 10'-8" from the side street (south) property line. The porch is aligned with the existing
building and does not extend further toward the south property line than does the existing
Page 6 of 124
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 4
Meeting: May 28, 2020
building, but as the proposed porch addition would be constructed p artially within the side
street setback, approval of a setback modification is required.
The applicant is also requesting HARC approval of a front and side yard fence designed so that
the portion of the fence along Myrtle Street is 3’-0” in height with less than the min. 50%
transparency recommended in the Design Guidelines, and the portion of the fence along E.
14th Street is proposed to be 4’-6” in height with the same style as the front fence.
The proposed additions and alterations to the street-facing facades are reviewed by the HPO,
which include the conversion of the attached carport to an enclosed garage, the addition of a
rear porch and alterations to the front porch, the addition of the front dormer feature, the
replacement of the aluminum siding with fiber composite siding, a change in the roof pitch and
replacement of the hip roof style with a gable roof and south gable with window, the
replacement of the asphalt shingle roof with a standing seam metal roof, the addition of exterior
light fixtures, and a rear addition with street-facing windows and rear gable. Although the
proposed dormer and gable features are designed with windows, the structure is designed to
remain a single-story structure, and a second-floor area is not part of the design.
Commissioner Parr asked what the applicant needs to do to meet compliance for 50%
transparency of the fence? Bostick explained that for every piece of fence board, there should be
an equal piece of fence gap.
The applicant, Cory Shaw, addressed the Commission and explained that he is okay with
eliminating some horizontal slats if needed to meet compliance of the 50% transparency rule.
Alternate Commissioner Mitchell asked what the next steps are in the process if approved.
Bostick explained that there will be a COA memo drafter for the applicant, which will need to
be used for the Permitting Department, and that the fence will need to meet the permitting
requirements.
Chair Parr opened and closed the public hearing as no one signed up to speak.
Motion to approve Item D (2020-14-COA) with condition to achieve 50% transparency and no
modification to height by Commissioner Morales. Second by Commissioner Browner.
Approved (6-1) with Alternate Commissioner Mitchell opposed.
E. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a new
fence, railing or wall that is inconsistent with the overlay district's characteristics and applicable
guidelines at the property located at 1407 Elm Street, bearing the legal description of 0.262 acres
out of the southwest part of Block 7 of the Hughes Addition. – Britin Bostick, Downtown &
Historic Planner
Staff report presented by Bostick. The Applicant is requesting HARC approval for a new wood
fence in the side street setback that would be 6’ in height, not provide transparency and which
would have horizontally-oriented fence boards. There is a privacy fence existing in the side
street setback. The subject property is listed on the Historic Resource Survey with a construction
date of 1970, but the 1964 aerial photo of Georgetown shows that the Ranch style house had
Page 7 of 124
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 4 of 4
Meeting: May 28, 2020
been constructed by that time. The photo does not indicate a privacy fence in the side yard in
the original site design, but a wood privacy fence currently exists on the site within the side
street setback. Per the Unified Development Code (UDC), fences in side street setbacks (the
required side street setback for properties in Residential Single Family (RS) zoning is 15’) for
properties in the Old Town Overlay District are required to be 3’ maximum in height and min.
50% transparency, unless HARC approves an alternate fence design. Fences that are installed at
least 15’ back from the side street property line and flush with or set back from the front face of
the structure are permitted to be 6’ tall with no transparency. The proposed side yard fence is 6’
in height, constructed of horizontal wood fence boards and installed along the south (side)
property line. As there is an existing wood privacy fence in that location, the primary difference
between the existing a new fence would be the design of the new fence.
Commissioner Browner asked when the privacy fence was actually built, and Bostick explained
that she was not able to determine that information as no information was found.
Commissioner Nunn commented that the fence has been up for at least twenty years.
Chair Parr opened and closed the public hearing as no one signed up to spe ak.
Alternate Commissioner Mitchell asked if the visibility requirements are the same for the side
and front of the fence. Bostick explained that they are.
The applicant, Tony Perez, addressed the Commission and commented on the transparency of
the fence. He explained that all boards will touch upon being installed, however, there will be
gaping due to the boards naturally shrinking over time.
Motion to approve Item E (2020-25-COA) as presented by Commissioner Nunn. Second by
Commissioner Morales. Approved (7-0).
F. Updates, Commission questions, and comments. – Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
Nelson explained that future meetings starting in July will take place in Council Chambers.
However, if Commissioners would like to participate by teleconference, that will remain an
option.
Adjournment
Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Nunn. Second by Commissioner Browner.
Meeting adjourned at 6:58pm
________________________________ _________________________________
Approved, Amanda Parr, Chair Attest, Terri Asendorf-Hyde, Secretary
Page 8 of 124
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
June 11, 2020
S UB J E C T:
Public Hearing and Possible Action o n a req ues t for a Certificate of Appropriateness (C O A) fo r the
d emo lition of a lo w p rio rity struc ture at the property lo cated 1002 E. 14th S treet, b earing the legal
d es criptio n 0.328 ac res out o f the northwes t part of Bloc k 38 of the S nyder Ad d ition. (2020-18-C O A) --
Britin Bostick, Downto wn & Histo ric P lanner
IT E M S UMMARY:
T he Applic ant is req ues ting HAR C app ro val fo r the d emo lition o f a struc ture lo cated in the O ld Town
O verlay Dis tric t that is id entified on the His toric R esource S urvey as a low priority s tructure cons tructed
in 1960. T he ap p lic ant is seeking approval fo r the d emo lition under the c riteria of lo s s of s ignificance.
T he struc ture’s c ond ition, materials and lack o f c learly d efined o r signific ant arc hitec tural style are
cons is tent with the d es ignation as a low priority s truc ture, altho ugh there is little b as is beyo nd age fo r the
s tructure to be id entified as contributing to the O ld Town O verlay Dis tric t. After c o nducting researc h into
the property his tory and reviewing available rec o rd s , s taff d o es no t find caus e fo r any ad d itional c o nditions
to b e plac ed upon the recommend ation of approval for the demolitio n reques t. T he d emo lition
s ubc o mmittee met o n 5/6/2020 and rec o mmend ed approval of the demolition due to loss o f signific anc e
und er UDC S ec . 3.13.030.F.2.a.i., with the c ond ition that the wood flo o rs b e s alvaged fo r reus e to the
extent feasible, and that any asbesto s be remediated in c o mp lianc e with all s tate and lo cal laws.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
N/A
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Britin Bostick, Downto wn & Histo ric P lanner
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Staff Report & His toric Res ource Survey Cover Memo
Exhibit 1 - Location Map Exhibit
Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent Exhibit
Exhibit 3 - Photos Exhibit
Exhibit 4 - Demolition Subcommittee Report Exhibit
Exhibit 5 - Public Comments Exhibit
Staff Pres entation Pres entation
Page 9 of 124
HISTORIC AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
FILE NUMBER: 2020-18-COA
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1002 E. 14th Street
APPLICANT: Chance Leigh
Background
This property is located in the Old Town Overlay District, at the southeast corner of E. 14th and
S. Maple Streets and directly east of the Olive Street National Register Historic District. Per the
National Park Service (NPS):
“The Olive Street Historic District, in Georgetown, Williamson County, Texas,
developed as a result of its close proximity to Southwestern University, an institution of
higher education founded by the Methodist Episcopal Conference in 1870. In 1887,
Dudley Hiram Snyder and John Wesley Snyder deeded 37 acres of land out of the
Snyder Addition for the construction of a new campus for the university. The
neighborhood was platted by the Snyder brothers in 1890, with lots initially sold to land
speculators and the first homes constructed in the area in the early twentieth century.
Two homes pre-date the formation of the Snyder Addition (1409 Olive Street, c.1885 and
1702 Olive Street, ca.1880). Due to its location directly south of the campus, the
neighborhood developed as residences for those associated with the college. Therefore
residences along Olive Street convey their connection with education and institutions of
higher learning through the professors and university staff that occupied the homes
from the 1890s until present day. The neighborhood further exhibits its significance in
architecture as residences represent excellent examples of popular national architectural
styles during the early twentieth century, constructed by prominent builders in the
region. The Olive Street Historic District is nominated at the local level to the National
Register under Criterion A in the area of Community Planning and Development, for its
association with the residential growth of Georgetown in proximity to Southwestern
University. The district is also nominated under Criterion C in the area of Architecture
for its collection of buildings that represent mid-nineteenth century revivals, late
Victorian-era, late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century movements, and the modern
movement.”
The structure at 1002 E. 14th Street was first listed on the 2007 Historic Resource Survey (HRS)
as a Low Priority Structure with a construction date of 1960 and was listed again on the 2016
HRS as a Low priority structure. The 2016 HRS gives a further architectural description of a
one-story house with asbestos and wood siding, a rectangular plan, a side gabled roof, and
entry stoop with a shed roof and a single front door. The survey further notes the enclosure of
the garage, replacement of the primary door and replacement of some of the siding. The
structure is not identified to have a stylistic influence, is not individually eligible for listing on
Page 10 of 124
File Number: 2020-18-COA
Meeting Date: June 11, 2020
Page 2 of 3
the National Register of Historic Places and was listed as a Low Priority structure because the
structure lacks historic significance and integrity.
A photo in Special Collections at Southwestern University and taken from an airplane shows a
clear view of what was then the vacant lot. The photo is from a collection estimated to have
been taken from late in the year 1934, when Emma Schultz owned the property. Emma was the
widow of W. M. Schultz, who bought the lot from K. B. McDonald in 1925. W. M. Schultz is
assumed to be William Morton Schultz, who served as a 1st Lieutenant in the U.S. Army
Medical Corps in World War I. Lieutenant Schultz passed away in 1929 and is buried in the
Odd Fellows Cemetery in Georgetown. His widow remarried and became Emma Schultz
Caspers before selling the property to Tom Hughes in 1947. There is no indication that another
structure pre-existed the current structure.
Public records show that on March 19, 1960, Maxine Benold purchased the lot for $800 from
Doyle E. and Georgia M. Johns, and that on April 23, 1960, Ms. Benold had a Mechanic’s Lien
filed against the property for $11,200, which was repaid on September 28th, 1962. The
Mechanic’s Lien Release indicates that the loan was made by Dr. Douglas W. Benold, her
brother. Ms. Benold sold the house to James L. and Helen J. Shepherd in 1962, and the deed
stipulated that the property and improvements must be insured for the duration of the loan.
Subsequent purchases of the property were by Francis L. and Mary S. Woodward in 1966, by
Bill F. and Mary A. Cowan in 1974, Daniel V. and Laura L. Andrade in 1995, Linda Ann
Forsyth in 1998, Justin and Britney Williams in 2006, Claudia Gilmer in 2006 and the present
owner, Wehring Family Investments LP, in 2020. A letter to the current owner identifies Dr.
James Shepherd as playing a key role in the Georgetown Health Foundation, and Lewis
(Francis) Wodward as a Professor of Music at Southwestern University while his wife Mary
taught piano at the University of Texas.
Public Comments
As required by the Unified Development Code, all property owners within a 300-foot radius of
the subject property that are located within City limits were notified of the demolition
application (27 notices mailed), and two (2) signs were posted on-site. To date, staff has received
two (2) public comments on the request and three (3) public comments in favor of the request.
Findings
The structure’s condition, materials and lack of clearly defined or significant architectural style
are consistent with the designation as a low priority structure, although there is little basis
beyond age for the structure to be identified as contributing to the Old Town Overlay District.
Based on the presence of wall cracks on the interior of the structure, the condition of the front
porch and the general lack of maintenance, a successful rehabilitation of the structure would
likely require removing the finish materials – including exterior materials – and repairing and
leveling the foundation, as well as replacing plumbing, the electrical system, and the HVAC
Page 11 of 124
File Number: 2020-18-COA
Meeting Date: June 11, 2020
Page 3 of 3
equipment and ductwork. For the structure to undergo the required repair work it is likely that
so much material would be replaced that the end result would be an effective demolition, or at
least a rehabilitation that would be difficult to understand as a historic structure. Additionally,
the framing is not from a time period and the structure is of such a low height that salvage of
the framing materials may not result in successful reuse. As noted in the Demolition
Subcommittee Report, the wood floors could be salvaged with the exception of a few areas that
may have deteriorated or been damaged beyond re-use. After conducting research into the
property history and reviewing available documents and files, staff does not find cause for any
additional conditions to be placed upon the recommendation of approval for the demolition
request.
RECOMMENDATION
Approval
Approval with Conditions: that the wood floors be salvaged for re-use to the extent feasible.
Disapproval
06/05/2020
FOR: Sofia Nelson, CNU-A
Historic Preservation Officer Date
Attachments: 2016 Historic Resource Survey Entry for the structure at 1002 E. 14th Street
Page 12 of 124
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:1002 E 14th St 2016 Survey ID:124452
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Low
SECTION 1
Basic Inventory Information
Owner/Address GILMER, CLAUDIA L, 101 OAK MEADOW DR, , GEORGETOWN,TX 78628-6884
Latitude:30.631466 Longitude -97.667754
Addition/Subdivision:S4615 - Snyder Addition
WCAD ID:R047473Legal Description (Lot/Block):SNYDER ADDITION, BLOCK 38(NW/PT), ACRES .328
Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District
Current Designations:
NR District Yes No)
NHL NR
(Is property contributing?
RTHL OTHM HTC SAL Local:Other
Date Recorded 4/23/2016Recorded by:CMEC
Other:
Historic Use:GovernmentEducationalDomestic
SocialReligiousRecreation/cultureIndustry/processing
DefenseCommerce/tradeAgriculture
Other:
Current Use:GovernmentEducationalDomestic
SocialReligiousRecreation/cultureIndustry/processingHealthcare
DefenseCommerce/tradeAgriculture
Function
EstimatedActual Source:WCADConstruction Date:1960
Builder:Architect:
Healthcare
Note: See additional photo(s) on page 4
Vacant
Vacant
Old Town District
Current/Historic Name:None/None
Photo direction: South
Page 13 of 124
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:1002 E 14th St 2016 Survey ID:124452
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Low
SECTION 2
Architectural Description
General Architectural Description:
One-story house with asbestos and wood siding, a rectangular plan, and a side-gabled roof; entry stoop with a shed
roof and a single front door.
Relocated
Additions, modifications:Garage enclosed; primary door replaced; some siding replaced
Stylistic Influence(s)
Queen Anne
Second Empire
Greek Revival
Eastlake
Italianate
Log traditional
Exotic Revival
Colonial Revival
Romanesque Revival
Renaissance Revival
Folk Victorian
Shingle
Monterey
Beaux Arts
Tudor Revival
Mission
Neo-Classical
Gothic Revival
Moderne
Craftsman
Spanish Colonial
Art Deco
Prairie
Pueblo Revival
Other:
Commercial Style
Post-war Modern
No Style
Ranch
International
Gable Hipped Gambrel Shed Flat w/parapet
Structural Details
Roof Form
Mansard Pyramid Other:
Wood shingles Tile Composition shingles Metal Other:
Roof Materials
Wall Materials
MetalBrick Wood SidingStucco Siding: OtherStone GlassWood shingles AsbestosLog VinylTerra Cotta Other:Concrete
Fixed Wood sash Double hung Casement Metal sash
Windows
Decorative Screenwork Other:
Single door Double door With transom With sidelights
Doors (Primary Entrance)
Other:
Plan
IrregularL-plan Four SquareT-plan RectangularModified L-plan 2-room Open ShotgunCenter PassageOther Bungalow
Chimneys
Brick StuccoStone Corbelled Caps
Interior Exterior
Other
Specify #0
PORCHES/CANOPIES
Form:Shed Roof Hipped RoofFlat Roof Gabled Roof Inset Other
Support
Suspension rodsBox columns Classical columns
Wood posts (plain)
Spindlework
Wood posts (turned)
Tapered box supports
Masonry pier
Other:
Fabricated metal
Jigsaw trim Suspension cables
Materials:Metal FabricWood Other:
# of stories:1 PartialNone FullBasement:
Ancillary Buildings
Garage Barn Shed Other:
Landscape/Site Features
StoneSidewalks WoodTerracing ConcreteDrives Well/cistern GardensOther materials:Brick Other
Landscape Notes:
Wood
None
None
None
None
Unknown
Asphalt
Page 14 of 124
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:1002 E 14th St 2016 Survey ID:124452
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Low
SECTION 3
Historical Information
Immigration/SettlementReligion/Spirituality
Commerce Law/GovernmentScience/Technology
Communication MilitarySocial/Cultural
Education Natural ResourcesTransportation
Exploration Planning/DevelopmentOther
Health
Applicable National Register (NR) Criteria:
National State LocalLevel of Significance:
Integrity:
Setting Feeling
Location
Association
Design Materials Workmanship
Yes NoIndividually Eligible?Undetermined
Is prior documentation available
for this resource?Yes No Not known
General Notes: (Notes from 2007 Survey: door replaced)
Associated Historical Context:Agriculture Architecture Arts
C
D
B
A Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history
Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past
Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction or represents the work of a
master, or possesses high artistic value, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components
lack individual distinctions
Has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history
Areas of Significance:
Periods of Significance:
Integrity notes:See Section 2
Yes NoWithin Potential NR District?Undetermined
Yes NoIs Property Contributing?Undetermined
High MediumPriority:Low Explain:Property lacks significance and integrity
Other Info:
Type:HABS Survey Other
Documentation details
2007 survey
Contact Survey Coordinator
History Programs Division, Texas
Historical Commission
512/463-5853
history@thc.state.tx.us
Questions?
1984 ID:Not Recorded2007 ID:340
2007 Survey Priority:Low 1984 Survey Priority:Not Recorded
Page 15 of 124
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:1002 E 14th St 2016 Survey ID:124452
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Low
Additional Photos
SoutheastPhoto Direction
Page 16 of 124
Location
2020-18-COA
Exhibit #1
PIN
E
S
T
MAP
L
E
S
T
LA
U
R
E
L
S
T
E 15TH ST
OLI
V
E
S
T
E 13TH ST
E 14TH ST
VIN
E
S
T
E 14TH ST
LA
U
R
E
L
S
T
E16THST
E 16TH ST
SANJOSEST
0 200100
Feet
¯
Site
Parcels
Page 17 of 124
Page 18 of 124
Page 19 of 124
Page 20 of 124
Page 21 of 124
Page 22 of 124
Page 23 of 124
Page 24 of 124
Page 25 of 124
Page 26 of 124
Page 27 of 124
Page 28 of 124
Page 29 of 124
Page 30 of 124
Page 31 of 124
Page 32 of 124
Page 33 of 124
Page 34 of 124
Page 35 of 124
Page 36 of 124
Page 37 of 124
Page 38 of 124
Page 39 of 124
Page 40 of 124
Page 41 of 124
Page 42 of 124
Page 43 of 124
Page 44 of 124
Page 45 of 124
Page 46 of 124
Page 47 of 124
Page 48 of 124
Page 49 of 124
Page 50 of 124
Page 51 of 124
Page 52 of 124
14 May 2020
Hello Mr. Wehring –
Thank you for your letter of 24 April 2020 regarding the property at 1002 E. 14th Street. It was very
thoughtful of you to notify us in advance of work to the structure.
Through no fault of your ownership, we have been disturbed to see the property fall into a state of
disrepair. But I’m afraid we cannot agree with your statement that ‘the future use of this lot greatly
exceeds its current state.’
The uniqueness of the area in and around the Olive Street Historic District is due to the variety of homes
built in the late 1800’s through the mid 1960’s. This home features the architecture style typical of the
period and its front façade has not been altered to make it unrecognizable to the original owner.
Historical significance can be linked to those who called it home including Dr. James Shepherd (who
played a key role in the Georgetown Health Foundation) and his wife, Judy; and SU Professor of Music
Lewis Woodward (along with his wife who taught piano at UT and his brother who was in the movies).
While we understand the desire to improve the site, we feel strongly against the demolition of any
property in the Old Town Overlay. Demolition must always be considered a last resort, and as the Design
Guidelines state, never as a matter of convenience.
All options must be investigated and considered. With that in mind, we would respectfully ask that you
consider the option to offer the property for relocation.
If demolition is the final decision, a complete history of the property must be compiled for posterity.
Thanks again for being a good neighbor. We appreciate the opportunity to openly consider and
comment on your proposal.
Kind regards,
Susan & Scott
Susan & Scott Firth
1403 Olive Street
Page 53 of 124
1
Britin Bostick
-----Original Message-----
From: Danielle Saunders
Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2020 12:15 PM
To: WEB_Planning <planning@georgetown.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: 1002 E. 14th St. Demolition
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
I received a Letter of Notice regarding demolition of the house at 1002 E. 14th St (Project Case Number 2020-18-COA) I
live 1 block south from this property in 15th Street and the am in favor of the demolition, with conditions. I would
favor this demolition if there are also assurances that what is built on the property to replace the current structure
meets the following requirements for the new structure.
1. Remains a single family unit
2. Aesthetically complements and blends with the neighboring structures, particularly since this property abuts the Olive
Street Historic District 3. The home that is build to replace this one is not drastically different in square footage or lot
placement. This property is a very tiny lot and dramatic changes in house size or placement would negatively impact the
immediate neighbors whose homes are situated in close proximity.
Sincerely,
Danielle and Jesse Saunders
Page 54 of 124
Page 55 of 124
Page 56 of 124
Page 57 of 124
1002 E. 14th Street Demolition
2020-18-COA
Historic & Architectural Review Commission
June 11, 2020
1Page 58 of 124
Item Under Consideration
2020-18-COA –1002 East 14th Street
•Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)
for the demolition of a low priority structure at the property located 1002 E. 14th Street,
bearing the legal description 0.328 acres out of the northwest part of Block 38 of the
Snyder Addition.
2Page 59 of 124
Item Under Consideration
HARC:
•Demolition of a Low Priority Structure in the Old Town Overlay District
3Page 60 of 124
Item Under Consideration (2011 View)
4Page 61 of 124
San Gabriel
House B&B
5Page 62 of 124
Current Context
6Page 63 of 124
1964 Aerial Photo
7Page 64 of 124
1974 Aerial Photo
8Page 65 of 124
Special Collections Southwestern University c. 1934
9Page 66 of 124
2011 Street View
10Page 67 of 124
2011 Street View
11Page 68 of 124
2011 Street View
12Page 69 of 124
2019 Street View
13Page 70 of 124
2019 Street View
14Page 71 of 124
Current Photos
15Page 72 of 124
Demolition Subcommittee Report
•The structure does not have features, design or style associated with a
particular period of significance.
•Possible to repair and level foundation, but extent of needed repair and
replacement unknown without further investigation.
•The structure is recognizable, but some features have been altered.
•Lack of maintenance presents challenges to preservation or restoration.
•The structure would likely be able to be relocated successfully as the
foundation is pier and beam, excepting the slab-on-grade portion.
•Recommended for demolition due to loss of significance, with condition
that wood floors be salvaged.
16Page 73 of 124
UDC Sec. 3.13.030.F.2.a.iv
F. Criteria for Approval for Relocation, Removal or Demolition of a
Historic Landmark or Contributing Historic Structure.
1.The Historic and Architectural Review Commission shall use circumstances or
items that are unique to the building or structure proposed to be relocated,
removed or demolished when reviewing the application.
2.The Historic and Architectural Review Commission shall make the following
findings when considering a request for demolition or relocation of a structure:
a.Loss of Significance.
b.Unreasonable Economic Hardship.
c.There is a compelling public interest that justifies relocation, removal or
demolition of the structure.
17Page 74 of 124
UDC Sec. 3.13.030.F.2.a.iv
F. Criteria for Approval for Relocation, Removal or Demolition of a Historic Landmark or Contributing Historic Structure.
1.The Historic and Architectural Review Commission shall use circumstances or items that are unique to the building or structure proposed to be relocated, removed or demolished when reviewing the application.
2.The Historic and Architectural Review Commission shall make the following findings when considering a request for demolition or relocation of a structure:
a.Loss of Significance.
i.The applicant has provided information that the building or structure is no longer historically, culturally or architecturally significant, or is no longer contributing to the historic overlay district; and
ii.The applicant has established that the building or structure has undergone significant and irreversible changes, which have caused the building or structure to lose the historic, cultural or architectural significance, qualities or features which qualified the building or structure for such designation; and
iii.The applicant has demonstrated that any changes to the building or structure were not caused either directly or indirectly by the owner, and were not due to intentional or negligent destruction, or lack of maintenance rising to the level of a demolition by neglect; and
iv.Demolition or relocation of the building or structure will not cause significant adverse effect on the historic overlay district or the City's historic resources; or 18Page 75 of 124
Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030
Criteria Staff’s Finding
1. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and
sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action;Complies
2. Compliance with any design standards of this Code;Complies
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to
the most extent practicable;
Partially
Complies
4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be amended from
time to time, specific to the applicable Historic Overlay District;
Partially
Complies
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the building, structure or site is preserved;Complies
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding properties in the
applicable historic overlay district;N/A
7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected; and Complies
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines and
character of the historic overlay district.N/A 19Page 76 of 124
UDC Sec. 3.13.030.F.2.a.iv
20
Criteria Staff’s Finding
i. The applicant has provided information that the building or structure is no longer historically,
culturally or architecturally significant, or is no longer contributing to the historic overlay district; and Complies
ii. The applicant has established that the building or structure has undergone significant and irreversible
changes, which have caused the building or structure to lose the historic, cultural or architectural
significance, qualities or features which qualified the building or structure for such designation; and
Complies
iii. The applicant has demonstrated that any changes to the building or structure were not caused either
directly or indirectly by the owner, and were not due to intentional or negligent destruction, or lack of
maintenance rising to the level of a demolition by neglect; and
Complies
iv. Demolition or relocation of the building or structure will not cause significant adverse effect on the
historic overlay district or the City's historic resources;Complies
Page 77 of 124
Public Notification
•Two (2) signs posted
•27 letters mailed
•Two (2) comments on the request and three (3) comments in favor.
21Page 78 of 124
Recommendation
Staff recommends Approval of the request for demolition, with the
condition that the hardwood floors be salvaged to the extent feasible.
22Page 79 of 124
HARC Motion
•Approve (as presented by the applicant)
•Deny (as presented by the applicant)
•Approve with conditions
•Postpone
23Page 80 of 124
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
June 11, 2020
S UB J E C T:
Public Hearing and Possible Action o n a req ues t for a Certificate of Appropriateness (C O A) fo r
new residential (infill) c o nstruc tion at the p roperty lo cated at 1002 E. 14th S treet, b earing the legal
d es criptio n 0.328 ac res out o f the northwes t part of Bloc k 38 of the S nyder Ad d ition. (2020-26-C O A) --
Britin Bostick, Downto wn & Histo ric P lanner
IT E M S UMMARY:
T he Ap p licant is req ues ting HAR C ap p ro val for the c o nstruc tion of a new s ingle-family residence.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
N/A
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Britin Bostick, Downto wn & Histo ric P lanner
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Staff Report Cover Memo
Exhibit 1 - Location Map Exhibit
Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent Exhibit
Exhibit 3 - Plans & Specifications Exhibit
Exhibit 4 - Public Comment Exhibit
Staff Pres entation Pres entation
Page 81 of 124
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-26-COA – 1002 E. 14th Street Page 1 of 5
Meeting Date: June 11, 2020
File Number: 2020-26-COA
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for new
residential (infill) construction at the property located at 1002 E. 14th Street, bearing the legal description
0.328 acres out of the northwest part of Block 38 of the Snyder Addition.
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name: 1002 E. 14th
Applicant: Chance Leigh (Chance Leigh Custom Homes)
Property Owner: Wehring Family Investments LP
Property Address: 1002 E. 14th Street
Legal Description: 0.328 acres out of the northwest part of Block 38 of the Snyder Addition
Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay District
Case History: 2020-18-COA requesting demolition of the existing low-priority structure is
scheduled for the same meeting date as this request.
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of construction: 1960 (HRS) – Original structure
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: Low
National Register Designation: N/A
Texas Historical Commission Designation: N/A
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
HARC:
• New residential (infill) construction
STAFF ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting HARC approval of a new single-family home (infill construction) on a corner
lot directly west of the Olive Street National Register Historic District. The request for demolition of the
historic structure was submitted under a separate application and has been reviewed by the HARC
Demolition Subcommittee and scheduled for review and public hearing by HARC in accordance with
UDC 3.13.030.E. The request for demolition is separate from the request for new construction in this
application and must be considered according to the criteria set forth in UDC 3.13.030.F. After the
demolition request for the existing structure is reviewed by HARC and a decision on the application is
made, HARC can then consider this application. At Staff’s request, this subsequent application, which
was determined to be complete when submitted, for infill construction was scheduled for HARC on the
same day as the demolition request to provide both the Commissioners and the Public with a complete
Page 82 of 124
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-26-COA – 1002 E. 14th Street Page 2 of 5
view of the proposed project. The research, evaluation and recommendations for 2020-18-COA are
provided with that application, and this application focuses on an evaluation of the proposed new
construction.
The applicant is proposing a new 3,862 sf house with an additional 928 sf of covered porches. The design
features gable and shed roof styles with a combination of asphalt shingle and standing seam metal
roofing, single-hung vinyl windows, fiber composite siding with brick siding at the front porch, and
large front and back porches. The garage is proposed to open toward the side (east) property line rather
than toward the side street (Maple Street). The largest portion of the structure is proposed as a single
story with a second-floor section above the garage, which minimizes the appearance of the second floor
from the street view.
Surrounding properties include one and two-story historic residential structures, and this property is
located directly west of the Olive Street National Register Historic District. Per the National Park Service
(NPS):
“The Olive Street Historic District, in Georgetown, Williamson County, Texas, developed as a
result of its close proximity to Southwestern University, an institution of higher education founded
by the Methodist Episcopal Conference in 1870. In 1887, Dudley Hiram Snyder and John Wesley
Snyder deeded 37 acres of land out of the Snyder Addition for the construction of a new campus
for the university. The neighborhood was platted by the Snyder brothers in 1890, with lots initially
sold to land speculators and the first homes constructed in the area in the early twentieth century.
Two homes pre-date the formation of the Snyder Addition (1409 Olive Street, c.1885 and 1702
Olive Street, ca.1880). Due to its location directly south of the campus, the neighborhood developed
as residences for those associated with the college. Therefore residences along Olive Street convey
their connection with education and institutions of higher learning through the professors and
university staff that occupied the homes from the 1890s until present day. The neighborhood further
exhibits its significance in architecture as residences represent excellent examples of popular
national architectural styles during the early twentieth century, constructed by prominent builders
in the region. The Olive Street Historic District is nominated at the local level to the National
Register under Criterion A in the area of Community Planning and Development, for its
association with the residential growth of Georgetown in proximity to Southwestern University.
The district is also nominated under Criterion C in the area of Architecture for its collection of
buildings that represent mid-nineteenth century revivals, late Victorian-era, late-nineteenth and
early-twentieth century movements, and the modern movement.”
Page 145 of the Design Guidelines (Chapter 14) reads: ”Any new design should relate to the traditional
design characteristics of surrounding buildings while also conveying the stylistic trends of today, as
well as attempting to incorporate sustainable practices. The sense of human scale must be conveyed
and maintained with any new development or conversion to a non-residential use.” Page 146 of the
Design Guidelines further provides a summary of key design characteristics for the Old Town Overlay
District:
• Buildings have similar setback alignment along the street frontage
Page 83 of 124
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-26-COA – 1002 E. 14th Street Page 3 of 5
• One- to two-story, traditional residential buildings, with an occasional third floor for the
grander houses
• Masonry and wood are the primary construction materials
• First floor porches and multiple windows on all façade sides and floors
• Pitched roofs
• Primary building entrance that faces the street with a walkway connected to a sidewalk along
the street
• Sidewalks and typically on-street parking
• Parking accessed via a driveway with parking area or garage located to the rear of the main
building façade
• Traditional landscape features such as large trees, shrubs, and other plantings that are visible
from the street
The proposed design is compatible with the style and materials of the surrounding historic structures,
while also maintaining a distinction as new construction and conveying stylistic trends of today with a
character that has been called a “modern farmhouse”, and which is a modern interpretation of the folk
design of a massed plan with side gable. The design uses brick and fiber composite siding that resembles
wood siding when painted, has porches and multiple windows, features pitched roofs with gable and
shed styles, and places the parking at the rear of the structure, accessed by a driveway interior to the lot
so that the garage does not face the street.
APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES
The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted
Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines:
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 14 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION AND
ADDITIONS IN THE OLD TOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT
14.1 Locate a new building using a residential type
setback.
Align the new non-residential building front
at a setback that is in context with the area
properties.
New residential buildings should meet the
minimum front setback requirement of the
UDC or use an increased setback if the block
has historically developed with an extended
setback.
Generally, additions should not be added to
the front facing façades.
Where no sidewalk exists, one should be
installed that aligns with nearby sidewalks.
Complies
The proposed structure is not situated in
line with adjacent structures because the
surrounding structures do not face onto the
same street, but rather face onto Maple
Street and Olive Street. The proposed
position on the site does comply with all
applicable setbacks, including the front
setback, and a front sidewalk is proposed as
part of the site design.
Page 84 of 124
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-26-COA – 1002 E. 14th Street Page 4 of 5
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 14 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION AND
ADDITIONS IN THE OLD TOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT
14.6 Where a large building is needed, divide the
building into modules that reflect the traditional
size of residential buildings.
A typical building module should not exceed
20 feet in width. The building module should
be expressed with at least one of the
following:
- A setback in wall planes of a
minimum of 3 feet
- A change in primary façade material
for the extent of the building module
- A vertical architectural element or
trim piece.
Variations in façade treatments should be
continued through the structure, including its
roofline and front and rear façades.
Complies
The proposed structure has features
including the front porch, a front dormer,
change of siding materials, multiple roof
planes and gable features that are consistent
with traditional residential structures.
14.10 Non-traditional siding materials are
discouraged.
Typically, artificial stone and brick veneer are
not appropriate.
Asphalt shingles are not appropriate.
Aluminum and vinyl are not appropriate.
Complies
Proposed siding materials are fiber
composite lapped siding and board and
batten siding as well as brick.
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the
following criteria:
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
1. The application is complete and the
information contained within the application
is correct and sufficient enough to allow
adequate review and final action;
Complies
Staff reviewed the application and deemed
it complete.
2. Compliance with any design standards of this
Code;
Complies
Complies with applicable UDC
requirements.
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties to the most extent practicable;
Not Applicable
If an historic structure is not located on the
property, the SOI Standards would not
Page 85 of 124
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-26-COA – 1002 E. 14th Street Page 5 of 5
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
apply. To the extent that the property is
located in a historic area, the proposed new
structure would comply by retaining the
site orientation and residential character.
4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and
Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be
amended from time to time, specific to the
applicable Historic Overlay District;
Complies
Complies with all applicable Guidelines.
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural
integrity of the building, structure or site is
preserved;
Complies
The property is historically a single-family
residential property, which is maintained
with the current proposal.
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be
compatible with surrounding properties in the
applicable historic overlay district;
Complies
The proposed design minimizes the
visibility of the attached garage and partial
second floor.
7. The overall character of the applicable historic
overlay district is protected; and
Complies
Proposed design has traditional design
elements consistent with the character of the
historic district.
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the
adopted Downtown and Old Town Design
Guidelines and character of the historic
overlay district.
Not Applicable
No signage is proposed as part of this
project.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends APPROVAL of the request.
As of the date of this report, staff has received one (1) written comment on the request.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Letter of Intent
Exhibit 3 – Plans and Specifications
Exhibit 4 – Public Comments
SUBMITTED BY
Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 86 of 124
Location
2020-26-COA
Exhibit #1
PIN
E
S
T
MAP
L
E
S
T
LA
U
R
E
L
S
T
E 15TH ST
OLI
V
E
S
T
E 13TH ST
E 14TH ST
VIN
E
S
T
E 14TH ST
LA
U
R
E
L
S
T
E16THST
E 16TH ST
SANJOSEST
0 200100
Feet
¯
Site
Parcels
Page 87 of 124
Page 88 of 124
Page 89 of 124
Page 90 of 124
Page 91 of 124
Page 92 of 124
Page 93 of 124
Page 94 of 124
Page 95 of 124
Page 96 of 124
Page 97 of 124
Page 98 of 124
Page 99 of 124
Page 100 of 124
Page 101 of 124
Page 102 of 124
Page 103 of 124
Page 104 of 124
Page 105 of 124
Page 106 of 124
Page 107 of 124
Page 108 of 124
1
Britin Bostick
-----Original Message-----
From: Danielle Saunders
Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2020 12:15 PM
To: WEB_Planning <planning@georgetown.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: 1002 E. 14th St. Demolition
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
I received a Letter of Notice regarding demolition of the house at 1002 E. 14th St (Project Case Number 2020-18-COA) I
live 1 block south from this property in 15th Street and the am in favor of the demolition, with conditions. I would
favor this demolition if there are also assurances that what is built on the property to replace the current structure
meets the following requirements for the new structure.
1. Remains a single family unit
2. Aesthetically complements and blends with the neighboring structures, particularly since this property abuts the Olive
Street Historic District 3. The home that is build to replace this one is not drastically different in square footage or lot
placement. This property is a very tiny lot and dramatic changes in house size or placement would negatively impact the
immediate neighbors whose homes are situated in close proximity.
Sincerely,
Danielle and Jesse Saunders
Page 109 of 124
1002 E. 14th Street
2020-26-COA
Historic & Architectural Review Commission
June 11, 2020
1Page 110 of 124
Item Under Consideration
2020-26-COA –1002 E. 14th
•Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of
Appropriateness (COA) for new residential (infill) construction at the property
located 1002 E. 14th Street, bearing the legal description 0.328 acres out of
the northwest part of Block 38 of the Snyder Addition.
2Page 111 of 124
Item Under Consideration
HARC:
•New residential (infill) construction
3Page 112 of 124
Item Under Consideration
4Page 113 of 124
San Gabriel
House B&B
5Page 114 of 124
Current Context
6Page 115 of 124
2011 Street View
7Page 116 of 124
8
1002 E. 14th Street Proposed Design
Page 117 of 124
1002 E. 14th Street Proposed Design
9Page 118 of 124
1002 E. 14th Street Proposed Materials
10Page 119 of 124
Current Context
11Page 120 of 124
Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030
Criteria Staff’s Finding
1. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and
sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action;Complies
2. Compliance with any design standards of this Code;Complies
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to
the most extent practicable;N/A
4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be amended from
time to time, specific to the applicable Historic Overlay District;Complies
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the building, structure or site is preserved;Complies
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding properties in the
applicable historic overlay district;Complies
7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected; and Complies
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines and
character of the historic overlay district.N/A 12Page 121 of 124
Public Notification
•Two (2) signs posted
•One (1) comment on the request
13Page 122 of 124
Recommendation
Staff recommends Approval of the request.
14Page 123 of 124
HARC Motion
•Approve (as presented by the applicant)
•Deny (as presented by the applicant)
•Approve with conditions
•Postpone
15Page 124 of 124